Wow, Dave. Anti-Mormon much? This is the first time you have ever made an issue about someones religion, and to do it in such a negative way is really off putting.And for you and all sheep that celebrated your "calling out" of Orson Scott Card, you should really do some sort of fact checking first. The story Hamlets Father doesn't have any gay people in it. That's right, not one. The figure that's in question is being portrayed as a pedophile. Not a gay pedophile, just a pedophile.Good job on not only getting your highly judgmental opinion in out there, but even better that it is based on a completely false premise.

It's also amusing to see the hypocrisy of a group of people who are supposedly against censorship publicly vilifying someone who might dare express an opinion contrary to theirs. Way to go, sheep. Baaaa!

I guess I will have to take ElectricPalladins advice and take my time and my money elsewhere. It's too bad all the escape artist podcast share the money, now I can't donate to escape pod, which I do still enjoy.

Wow, Dave. Anti-Mormon much? This is the first time you have ever made an issue about someones religion, and to do it in such a negative way is really off putting.

And for you and all sheep that celebrated your "calling out" of Orson Scott Card, you should really do some sort of fact checking first. The story Hamlets Father doesn't have any gay people in it. That's right, not one. The figure that's in question is being portrayed as a pedophile. Not a gay pedophile, just a pedophile.

Good job on not only getting your highly judgmental opinion in out there, but even better that it is based on a completely false premise.

Dude, check your own facts. OSC has been quoted on numerous occasions as claiming that most homosexuals were "recruited" into their sexuality by evil gay pedophiles. In fact, Card makes no distinction between healthy homosexuality and unrelated pedophilia. Go to the man's website, read his own statements.

It's also amusing to see the hypocrisy of a group of people who are supposedly against censorship publicly vilifying someone who might dare express an opinion contrary to theirs. Way to go, sheep. Baaaa!

Agreement does not a sheep make, otherwise we'd all be iconoclastic douchebags disagreeing with everything that is said to us on principle. So, you're accusing us of being sheep because we agree with someone, anyone, and it's not you? Grow the hell up. The last time anyone got away with that B.S. was middle school.

For that matter, no one is suggesting censoring Card. If Dave said that Card should be prevented from spewing his hatred, I missed it. The compatible reality of censorship is criticism. I don't have a right to stop Card from publishing whatever he can get to market, but I damned well have the right to say what I think about it - and if what I think about it is that it's hateful garbage, then that's my right.

A censor is someone who tries to stop a work of art from existing or being published or distributed. A reasonable, thinking person is someone who has an opinion about it.

I guess I will have to take ElectricPalladins advice and take my time and my money elsewhere. It's too bad all the escape artist podcast share the money, now I can't donate to escape pod, which I do still enjoy.

I won't argue with you. At least you won't be posting nonsense anymore.

All right, I was going to stay out of this one, but Jayazman has taken this to a new level. First of all, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or a Mormon. I am also a good friend of Dave's. And while I am sure Dave and I differ on certain viewpoints, I have never encountered anything anti-[any specific religion] about him. His rage seemed to be focused on the book rather than the religion. Yes, he specifically called out Card's religion, but he had also just talked about himself being a Quaker.

I don't know anything about your claims to the book, or Dave's. I don't intend to read it. If I want to read Hamlet, I've got a really thick Shaekspear book on the shelf. I don't need OSC's, or anyone else's take on it. Personally it was a suprise to me to learn that Hamlet's father was gay in the first place. Sometimes people project things onto characters in literature that may or may not have been intended by the author (as in the discussion previously on the forums re: Dr. Frankenstein).

As for Card, the guy does himself no favors. Is ill intent read into his every move because of his political statements? Yeah, I think so, and sometimes where none is due. But if you are going to publish strong opinions, you are going to get strong reactions.

But Dave's point about the two greatest commandments being love God, and love your neighbor as yourself, was spot on. Loving your neighbor does not mean that you have to agree with them or validate everyhing they do, it means you genuinely care about them as a person, you care about their feelings, you want the best for them. I can love my neighbor and have a different point of view. Loving God, and loving your neighbor, go hand in hand. You cannot show love to God while treating a neighbor poorly. At church, I refer to people as my brothers and sisters, but that distinction does not stop at the walls of the church. It is not dependant upon their opinions, lifestyle, sexuality, race, religion, etc.

This more or less echoes my previous concerns. Anytime you introduce religion to what might have been an objective moral debate, it produces a polarizing effect, and in a bad way. And it's different than if Dave had simply stated his point of view in as objective a manner as possible. Suddenly, a moral argument becomes Christians vs Quakers vs Muslims vs Catholics vs Mormons vs Wiccans vs Deists vs Pastafarians.... And so on, bickering over a set of supernatural beliefs which can neither be proven nor disproven, and as such is best left off the table when speaking to a wide, public audience.

I understand that Dave meant no harm when he accused OSC of "blasphemy", but it is still language which produces a jarring effect.

It's good to see that ElectricPaladin's record of missing the point remains unblemished.Whether or not Orson Scott Card has said anything in the past about evil gay pedophiles is not the issue here (although if you could point to some articles to back up your statement, that would be great). The point here is Dave's anti-Mormon agenda. First, Card is in no way associated with this podcast. Card did not write the story for this podcast, Card did not read the story for this podcast. The only reason to bring up Card and his religion is to Card and Mormon bash.

Secondly, Dave's rant about Card writing an anti-gay story is completely unfounded.

Quote

And so, when I log on to the old internets, and read that Orson Scott Card, a Mormon, has a novella coming out soon that, as a plot point, suggests that since Hamlet’s daddy was gay and thus the ghost that sets all things in motion was actually a malevolent spirit – because again - he was gay and thus, said gayness caused the evil spirit to be the real bad guy in Shakespeare’s play

The point is that there are no gay characters in Cards story. So what is this "calling out" that most people are congratulating Dave for?Agreement based only on discrimination and prejudice does sheep make. Someone said Card wrote a story that was anti-gay, the sheep jumped on the bandwagon for "calling Card out" without bothering to find out if it is true. There are some

Whether or not Orson Scott Card has said anything in the past about evil gay pedophiles is not the issue here (although if you could point to some articles to back up your statement, that would be great). The point here is Dave's anti-Mormon agenda.

Woah, there. Dave's anti-Mormon agenda? That's exciting. Can I have an agenda, too?

Anyway, my wife is the one who found the full article on Card's "Hamlet." I'll have to post a link when I have a chance to talk to her.

First, Card is in no way associated with this podcast. Card did not write the story for this podcast, Card did not read the story for this podcast. The only reason to bring up Card and his religion is to Card and Mormon bash.

Secondly, Dave's rant about Card writing an anti-gay story is completely unfounded.

Quote

And so, when I log on to the old internets, and read that Orson Scott Card, a Mormon, has a novella coming out soon that, as a plot point, suggests that since Hamlet’s daddy was gay and thus the ghost that sets all things in motion was actually a malevolent spirit – because again - he was gay and thus, said gayness caused the evil spirit to be the real bad guy in Shakespeare’s play

And for you and all sheep that celebrated your "calling out" of Orson Scott Card, you should really do some sort of fact checking first. The story Hamlets Father doesn't have any gay people in it. That's right, not one. The figure that's in question is being portrayed as a pedophile. Not a gay pedophile, just a pedophile.Good job on not only getting your highly judgmental opinion in out there, but even better that it is based on a completely false premise.

Ah, I believe you're referring to this post by OSC himself, which was a rebuttal to the Publisher's Weekly review? You may also want to check out William Alexander's review at Rain Taxi online. So I don't know. Due to the reviews I have read, and due to OSC's background on the issue (links collected by Jim C. Hines), I find his rebuttal...questionable, at best. I could be wrong, of course. But I'm not planning on spending whatever the book is now going for to read it myself. There's too many other things I'd rather read instead (some of them, also by OSC).

The point here is Dave's anti-Mormon agenda. First, Card is in no way associated with this podcast. Card did not write the story for this podcast, Card did not read the story for this podcast. The only reason to bring up Card and his religion is to Card and Mormon bash.

Let's concede (for the sake of argument) that Dave's intro was actually anti-Card, and that Card was not related to this story. I can see why Card himself, or one of his fans such as (apparently) yourself, would take issue with that. But show me *one* negative word that Dave said about any Mormon other than Card, or Mormons in general, or anything else that will make me believe Dave has an "anti-Mormon agenda", rather than just a disapproval of one particular person who happens to be a Mormon.

First, Card is in no way associated with this podcast. Card did not write the story for this podcast, Card did not read the story for this podcast. The only reason to bring up Card and his religion is to Card and Mormon bash.

I do not much care for that idea that the editors must stick only and exclusively to the story in their opening remarks.

Furthermore, if you listen to the story - and you did listen to the story, didn't you? - said remarks ARE germane to the story, given the nature of the story and the main character.

Lastly, I don't much like the argument "Given A and B, C must be true". Dave uses the term Mormon precisely once. You could equally make the argument "A Quaker did not write a story for this podcast, a Quaker did not read this story for this podcast, therefore the only reason to bring up his religion is to convert us all to Quakerism". Being that said term is mentioned as many times.

This is my first time reading (and, ergo, posting) to this site. However, I've been a subscriber to Escape Artists since day one of Escape Pod. I love having the opportunity to listen to a wide variety of art, and even look forward to the pre- and post- episode banter.

For the record, I am a Mormon and did feel an in-direct attack against my faith immediately upon listening to Dave's pre-story banter. The fact that OSC is Mormon is completely irrelevent to Dave's comments on Card's book. It seemed very odd that the Card's religion was pointed out when I've rarely, if ever, heard the editors of any Excape Artist episode list one's religion. Therefore, it appeared to be an indirect attack against our church.

That being said, I have every intention to continue to listen to all the Podcastles I can get my grubby little Ipod on! I solidly agree with Dave's overarching message that the two greatest laws are love. Mormon religion teaches the same message. And, for the record, our church clearly exhorts all of us to love one another, regardless of sexual or religions backgrounds. Thank you, Dave, for trying to call out Christians who preach otherwise -but please be gentle when doing so lest you also be judged as non-forgiving.

Lastly, I don't much like the argument "Given A and B, C must be true". Dave uses the term Mormon precisely once. You could equally make the argument "A Quaker did not write a story for this podcast, a Quaker did not read this story for this podcast, therefore the only reason to bring up his religion is to convert us all to Quakerism". Being that said term is mentioned as many times.

Logic fail, but thanks for trying. You forgot the first and foremost point, Dave, a quaker, is part of Pod Castle.

And Dave, I did go back and listen to the intro's to the podcasts that you linked. You never mentioned a specific religion in either of those, only talked about Christianity in general. Although going back and listening to several intros in a row, I did notice how you use your position as host to attack people you don't like or disagree with. Thanks for pointing that out.

I honestly think that Dave's intention when mentioning Card's religion was not "Card was a mormon, and thus everything I say is representative of Mormons in general", but rather "Card is a Mormon, and therefore I expected more from him".

Note that I did not discuss Dave's interpretation with him nor do I represent him (or Escape Artists) in any way here. I'm just saying what my own interpretation of his words were when I first was exposed to them, long before this current controversy started.

Dave, I did go back and listen to the intro's to the podcasts that you linked. You never mentioned a specific religion in either of those, only talked about Christianity in general.

It's possible we're not talking about the same thing? Because I specifically said I was a Quaker in the Corinthians intro, and went on to talk about the distinction between Christian authors vs. Chistian publishing houses, and what made me uncomfortable with the latter. (Essentially, the plot points about how those lowly, unrepentant sinners get theirs is not something I appreciate.)

This is my first time reading (and, ergo, posting) to this site. However, I've been a subscriber to Escape Artists since day one of Escape Pod. I love having the opportunity to listen to a wide variety of art, and even look forward to the pre- and post- episode banter.

For the record, I am a Mormon and did feel an in-direct attack against my faith immediately upon listening to Dave's pre-story banter. The fact that OSC is Mormon is completely irrelevent to Dave's comments on Card's book. It seemed very odd that the Card's religion was pointed out when I've rarely, if ever, heard the editors of any Excape Artist episode list one's religion. Therefore, it appeared to be an indirect attack against our church.

That being said, I have every intention to continue to listen to all the Podcastles I can get my grubby little Ipod on! I solidly agree with Dave's overarching message that the two greatest laws are love. Mormon religion teaches the same message. And, for the record, our church clearly exhorts all of us to love one another, regardless of sexual or religions backgrounds. Thank you, Dave, for trying to call out Christians who preach otherwise -but please be gentle when doing so lest you also be judged as non-forgiving.

Hi Briteach,

Thanks for listening, for signing up to comment, and being willing to say what I said made you uncomfortable

I mentioned Card's faith not to slam Mormons and LDS in general, or you in particular. I brought it up because his faith and my own share a common text (as you pointed out). When someone claims to follow Jesus's teachings, loving one another seems to be toward the top of the list - no matter how different they are. Hating a group of people because they're different seems to run contrary.

I don't hate Card by any stretch of the imagination. I am disappointed in him, and this novella in particular.

@DKTI don't believe I ever brought up you being a Quaker. My contention is bringing up Card being a Mormon, when, as far as I am aware, you never brought up anyone else's specific religion. Even in Corinthians, while you hate on Kirk Cameron and a bunch of other people I don't know, you never specify, "Kirk Cameron is Protestant" (this is an example only, I don't know what Kirk Cameron is), or Random Guy That Writes Things I Don't Like is Episcopalian, or Muslim, or Jehovah's Witness. But you were very careful to bring up Card's religion.

@eytanzThat could be, although that's is not how it came across to me. As I don't know Dave personally, all I have to go on is what he says.

Quote

So I don't know. Due to the reviews I have read, and due to OSC's background on the issue (links collected by Jim C. Hines)

suggests to me that Dave knew very well what OSC's positions are and therefore wouldn't have expected more from him. So while your position could be true, it really doesn't look like it.

@DKTI don't believe I ever brought up you being a Quaker. My contention is bringing up Card being a Mormon, when, as far as I am aware, you never brought up anyone else's specific religion. Even in Corinthians, while you hate on Kirk Cameron and a bunch of other people I don't know, you never specify, "Kirk Cameron is Protestant" (this is an example only, I don't know what Kirk Cameron is), or Random Guy That Writes Things I Don't Like is Episcopalian, or Muslim, or Jehovah's Witness. But you were very careful to bring up Card's religion.

@eytanzThat could be, although that's is not how it came across to me. As I don't know Dave personally, all I have to go on is what he says.

Quote

So I don't know. Due to the reviews I have read, and due to OSC's background on the issue (links collected by Jim C. Hines)

suggests to me that Dave knew very well what OSC's positions are and therefore wouldn't have expected more from him. So while your position could be true, it really doesn't look like it.

For crying out loud from the back of an elephant, are you actually pitching a fit because Dave mentioned Mormonism? If Dave had simply said "Orson Scott Card, an asshole" you wouldn't have cared? Consider that Dave has a perfectly reasonable answer for that - the fact of a shared text is necessary to bring up the possibility of blasphemy - and for that to make any sense, Dave needed to establish that fact.

All Dave wanted to do was mention the homophobia in terms of blasphemy. The idea - an admirable one, I might add - is that by committing homophobia - a kind of hatred - in the name of a divine text - a text that Dave and Orson share - Card is committing an act of blasphemy. This is just as valid as Card saying that the gays are committing an act of blasphemy by being gay. You can't support Card's right to level his accusations without acknowledging Dave's right to do the same.

Now, if you wanted to say, as some others have said, "I don't like Dave getting up on a soap box to talk about how we need to love the gays," well, that's your prerogative. Just as it's Dave's prerogative to do whatever the hell he wants on his own damned podcast. If Dave isn't interested in making PodCastle a safe and fluffy place for homophobes by respectfully challenging their beliefs, well, more power to him. Frankly, I don't want those jerks around here, either. If you can't handle respectful criticism and need to nit-pick at two-word statements - statements with perfectly reasonable explanations - to invent a reason to be offended, that's your problem.

Just as it's Dave's prerogative to do whatever the hell he wants on his own damned podcast.

Is it really though? His own podcast, I mean? Or is he merely charged with representing Escape Artists, Inc? Because if it's the latter, maybe it's time to rethink the position of using a fiction podcast as a platform for religious condemnation.

The reason I write this, and the reason I remain engaged in this discussion, is because I believe I speak for many when I say I am interested in the podcasts which Escape Artists produce, and want to think of Escape Artists in the best light possible.

Why couldn't the argument that OSC is wrong stand on its own merits? Why is it not enough to call hatred hatred, without adding a special kind of judgment to the mix? I think, for example, that it is enough to say that terrorism is terrorism, without pointing out that a terrorist may have had religious beliefs that conflicted with yours.

And what does this mean for future episodes? More preaching? More accusations of blasphemy?

When you speak out against a wrongdoer on purely religious grounds, you attack not only the wrongdoing, but also the religious specifics of the accused. I think that, by naming his Quakerism, and also OSC's Mormonism, he signaled to a whole audience: "Hey, if you believe differently than I do, I have a problem with that!" Even if Dave meant no harm (I know he didn't), that is the message he is broadcasting to many.

Again, I believe there are many listeners with perceptions of the matter similar to mine. Nobody wants to feel judged just for having a different set of religious beliefs (or in my case, no religious beliefs) than the guy introducing a podcast.

Is it really though? His own podcast, I mean? Or is he merely charged with representing Escape Artists, Inc? Because if it's the latter, maybe it's time to rethink the position of using a fiction podcast as a platform for religious condemnation.

I find this to be a pretty pedantic difference. For so long as Escape Artists Inc. choses Dave to represent them, it's his podcast. They could take it away, but unless they do, it's his to do with as he chooses.

The reason I write this, and the reason I remain engaged in this discussion, is because I believe I speak for many when I say I am interested in the podcasts which Escape Artists produce, and want to think of Escape Artists in the best light possible.

Why couldn't the argument that OSC is wrong stand on its own merits? Why is it not enough to call hatred hatred, without adding a special kind of judgment to the mix? I think, for example, that it is enough to say that terrorism is terrorism, without pointing out that a terrorist may have had religious beliefs that conflicted with yours.

I think it's interesting because - at least in America, and many other parts of the world - the cruel, close-minded, and fanatical have a strangelhold on "religious truth." This may not matter to you, which I respect, but it matters to a lot of the rest of us. Dave is attempting to invert that stranglehold by asserting that love is a higher law. It's a rhetorical trick, a clever way of talking about a topic. They cry "the blasphemous gays with their blasphemous homosexuality!" and Dave replies, "No, you!"

When you speak out against a wrongdoer on purely religious grounds, you attack not only the wrongdoing, but also the religious specifics of the accused. I think that, by naming his Quakerism, and also OSC's Mormonism, he signaled to a whole audience: "Hey, if you believe differently than I do, I have a problem with that!" Even if Dave meant no harm (I know he didn't), that is the message he is broadcasting to many.

Again, I believe there are many listeners with perceptions of the matter similar to mine. Nobody wants to feel judged just for having a different set of religious beliefs (or in my case, no religious beliefs) than the guy introducing a podcast.

I respect your opinion, but I have no idea where the hell you got any of that. The fact that Dave's Quakerism informs his opinions has absolutely to do with your religious beliefs or lack thereof. Dave's a Quaker, and he's allowed to mention it whenever he wants. I'm a Jew, and I can do the same. If you're so insecure in your atheism that the mere mention of Dave's Quakerism causes you to feel judged, well, I think you need to examine that. I can tell you very clearly that there aren't a lot of religions more different than Judaism and Quakerism, and I don't feel even slightly judged.